ARAMUS REALTY LLP,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28 (1) (1), NAVI MUMBAI

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई पीठ�, मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: A BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 1762/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) ARAMUS REALTY LLP INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28 (1) (1) PLOT NO 23 SECTOR 40 NERUL NAVI MUMBAI, MUMBAI- INCOME TAX OFFICE VASHI 400703, MAHARASHTRA Vs. , NAVI MUMBAI MUMBAI-400705, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of ABGFA3000R Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented Shri Surendra Mohan ( SR. DR. by: )

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 01-Jul-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 30/07/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 19/01/2026 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeal), Addl/JCIT-(A), Bhubaneswar, for A.Y. 2019-20 on following grounds of appeal:-

1) The learned AO erred on facts, in law in making addition of Rs 5500000 u/s 68 - on account of Loan Received from loan creditors and Rs 504657 u/s 69A for interest on this loan

2) The Learned AO erred on facts, in law to reopen assessment u/s 148 without passing an order u/s 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Though the AO has issued notices u/s 148A (b).

3) The Learned AO erred on facts, in law in passing assessment order u/s 147 without the prior approval of The additional Commissioner OR additional Directors OR Joint Commissioner OR Joint Director as required u/s 148B of the Income Tax Act 1961.

4) The Learned AO has not given opportunity to cross examine the deponent of the statement and also not provided copy of independent enquiry conducted by the AO and evidences collected.

5) The Learned AO has concluded his finding on the basic of statement recorded of the loan creditors, however no WHARE in this statement name of the assesse has been mentioned as beneficiary of the accommodation entry and the AO has not provided any evidences that the assesse has paid cash and received bogus loans in its books of accounts

6) The assesee has discharged its liability by providing documentary evidences i.e Bank statement showing receipt of loan, loan confirmation duly signed by loan creditors copy of Income Tax returns of the loan creditors and also identity of the loan creditors only doubt raised is above genuineness of the transaction, however the loans creditors has never denied the transaction of loan paid and received back from the assesee along with interest and applicable TDS.

7) The learned AO has entirely relied on general statement of the loan creditors that he has given accommodation entries which statements was subsequently retracted by the deponent of the statement therefore this conclusion drawn by the AO is erroneous

8) Since the assesse has filed return of income and provided all details and explanations asked for by the AO therefore the conclusion drawn by the AO is factually incorrect and assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act without prior permission of the additional Commissioner OR additional Directors OR Joint Commissioner OR Joint Director as required u/s 148B of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law and required to be quashed.

9) The learned JCIT appeal has erred on facts, in law in rejecting appeal filed against rectification order passed u/s 154 on the ground that grounds of appeal are not in conformity with grounds of appeal of section 154 . 10) Since the rectification order passed u/s 154 is merged with original order the Assesee has taken grounds of appeal same as that of grounds raised against the original order considering that this rectified order being final order the grounds are similar to that of original order except one loan creditor addition of Rs 20 Lakh which was missed by the AO at the time of framing original assessment order 11) The Asseesee reserves right to add , alter, delete any OR all the ground of appeal before OR at the time of final hearing of the appeal .” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Limited Liability Partnership, is engaged in the business of construction of residential and commercial premises, as well as development and allied construction activities. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 26/08/2019 declaring a total income of Rs.7,47,460/-.

2.1. Subsequently, the case was reopened on the basis of information received through the Insight Portal indicating that the assessee had allegedly obtained bogus/fictitious loans amounting to Rs.38,56,942/- from M/s.Aarohi Creations LLP and Rs.21,98,480/- from Shri Lokesh Kumar Khabya. Thereafter, after following the due process of law, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee, followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.

2.2. Pursuant to the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO made the impugned additions.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

During the pendency of the said appeal, the Ld.AO passed an order u/s.154 of the Act, whereby the addition on account of bogus unsecured loans was enhanced by treating a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and an amount of Rs.5,04,657/- towards interest as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A).

2.3. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee upheld the addition made by Ld.AO u/s 154 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.1. The Ld.AR further submitted that section 154(3) of the Act specifically mandates that no amendment having the effect of enhancing an assessment or increasing the liability of the assessee shall be made unless the Assessing Officer has first issued a notice proposing such rectification and afforded the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

3.2. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and supported the action of the Ld.AO.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

4.1. It is a settled proposition of law that an order passed in breach of a mandatory statutory provision and in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the present case, the Ld.DR has not brought any material on record to establish that a notice proposing rectification or enhancement was issued to the assessee before passing the order u/s.154 of the Act, nor has any evidence been produced to show that an opportunity of being heard was afforded to the assessee.

4.2. Under these circumstances, we hold that the impugned rectification order, to the extent it enhances the assessment without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 154(3) of the Act, is unsustainable. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct the Ld.AO to delete the additions made by way of enhancement in the hands of the assessee.

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 30/07/2026 Sr. P.S.

Copy to: ARAMUS REALTY LLP, PLOT NO 23 SECTOR 40 NERUL NAVI 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28 (1) (1), 2 INCOME TAX OFFICE VASHI , NAVI MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400705, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE